Introducing the LCD-i3

[MacedonianHero]

Yep everyone I know who had iSine said it doesn't sound good without the software DSP correction,

Everyone I know (and myself included), disagree with this. Just our 2 cents...

 

[Deftone]

Everyone I know (and myself included), disagree with this. Just our 2 cents...

I wonder why Audeze use the DSP then...

 

[Wes S]

I wonder why Audeze use the DSP then...

Good question. I love my iSine 10 with analoge cable balanced out of my Jotunhiem/Mimby rig.

 

[joshnor713]

I can understand offering a cable that has all you need in it for a proper HiFi experience to simplify things for those who want it, but the best output for an "audiophile" device should be without a question out through straight analog. It should be designed around this, then add on anything extra to that. It concerns me that Audeze may be designing to the DSP correction.

Along these lines, not offering a LCD-i3 with no Cipher and no Bluetooth cable, at a lower price, is a plainly said stupid.

 

[EagleWings]

I wonder why Audeze use the DSP then...

For a headphone/earphone to sound tonally correct, a headphone/earphone's frequency response must be in the ball park of any headphone target curve. In the stock form, Audeze's in-ears' frequency response is a bit far from any headphone target curves. What the DSP in the Cipher Cable does is, apply an EQ that brings the frequency response to Audeze's headphone target curve.

Without the cipher cable, the earphone does sound good in the the non-tonal aspects such as; soundstage, separation and layering. But it won't have the correct tonal balance, because of which, timbre of vocals and instruments won't be correct.

 

[TheStalker79]

Another Audio46 review, this time in english:



Not a very good review if you ask me. Still waiting on proper impressions. But there seems to be consistency that we may be looking at a V-shaped sound sig.

I'm a bit dubious to trust reviews from retailers.

Everyone I know (and myself included), disagree with this. Just our 2 cents...

Yup, with a good EQ set up, you can have them sounding great. isines are really responsive to various EQ tuning.

 

[MacedonianHero]

I wonder why Audeze use the DSP then...

Because they are pioneers in this. DSP can help literally EVERY headphone on the planet. That is not to say that without DSP, that they sound bad...not by any means. But this is a hobby of squeezing out every last drop of juice from the "proverbial audio orange" that you can get...and that's where DSP comes in to play.

 

[Audeze]

I wonder why Audeze use the DSP then...

Pretty much every headphone in the world (not just Audeze headphones) will have some non-linearities. Several solutions are used in almost all headphones (Cross over, Damping etc). DSP is one additional tool kit that is available if people want to use it. We have said this several times before.

We design the headphone to make sure we can achieve the best tonal balance, impulse response, staging etc without using any external processing. However, if customers can get better performance with additions..why deprive them of the option ? We don't design a headphone saying..we can fix it with DSP. We design headphones to ensure we can get the best out of a particular design.

Take a look at SonarWorks. They provide curves for mastering engineers for almost every headphone model. You can try their trial version to see how DSP changes the FR for almost every headphone.

 

[joshnor713]

For a headphone/earphone to sound tonally correct, a headphone/earphone's frequency response must be in the ball park of any headphone target curve. In the stock form, Audeze's in-ears' frequency response is a bit far from any headphone target curves. What the DSP in the Cipher Cable does is, apply an EQ that brings the frequency response to Audeze's headphone target curve.

Without the cipher cable, the earphone does sound good in the the non-tonal aspects such as; soundstage, separation and layering. But it won't have the correct tonal balance, because of which, timbre of vocals and instruments won't be correct.

You do that with design/engineering, not EQ. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I feel audiophiles want a true signal not artificial one.

 

[MacedonianHero]

Pretty much every headphone in the world (not just Audeze headphones) will have some non-linearities. Several solutions are used in almost all headphones (Cross over, Damping etc). DSP is one additional tool kit that is available if people want to use it. We have said this several times before.

We design the headphone to make sure we can achieve the best tonal balance, impulse response, staging etc without using any external processing. However, if customers can get better performance with additions..why deprive them of the option ? We don't design a headphone saying..we can fix it with DSP. We design headphones to ensure we can get the best out of a particular design.

Take a look at SonarWorks. They provide curves for mastering engineers for almost every headphone model. You can try their trial version to see how DSP changes the FR for almost every headphone.

Hey, I said that first. But excellent point on Sonarworks..I wish I had thought of that one.

 

[aliquis]

I can understand offering a cable that has all you need in it for a proper HiFi experience to simplify things for those who want it, but the best output for an "audiophile" device should be without a question out through straight analog. It should be designed around this, then add on anything extra to that. It concerns me that Audeze may be designing to the DSP correction.

Along these lines, not offering a LCD-i3 with no Cipher and no Bluetooth cable, at a lower price, is a plainly said stupid.

I've seen claims before how good that cheap Sony in ear monitor is with eq.

Of course if it's already perfect more inbetween won't make things better but as things unlikely are perfect it can likely help.

Bose does it on large scale and it likely sounds better than without ...

 

[EagleWings]

You do that with design/engineering, not EQ.

Yes you can and they did it and I am loving it.

Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I feel audiophiles want a true signal not artificial one.

If you want a true signal, you really need to be at the recording sessions. Because every music file you get your hands on has gone through a whole lot of processing.

 

[Audeze]

Yes you can and they did it and I am loving it.

If you want a true signal, you really need to be at the recording sessions. Because every music file you get your hands on has gone through a whole lot of processing.

Also, most concerts use lot of DSP as well. There are quite a bit of tools from UA, Waves etc that take the ProTools (or other DAW) sessions from the studio and allows people to use it live at concerts in real-time. Most people who come to concerts want to listen to the singer as he sounds in his album.

 

[joshnor713]

Yes you can and they did it and I am loving it.



If you want a true signal, you really need to be at the recording sessions. Because every music file you get your hands on has gone through a whole lot of processing.

I'm glad you are! That's the ultimate goal after all.

I understand that you aren't going to get a 1:1 to what was in the studio. But gotta also remember that the more processing you're doing, the more you're compounding the "error", so to speak. For principal, I desire to keep that as minimal as possible.

 

[natalieann]

You do that with design/engineering, not EQ. Maybe I'm just speaking for myself, but I feel audiophiles want a true signal not artificial one.

‍‍